The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences

of Psychological Ownership in Organizational
Settings

Melissa G. Mayhew , Neal M. Ashkanasy , Tom Bramble & John Gardner

To cite this article: Melissa G. Mayhew , Neal M. Ashkanasy , Tom Bramble & John Gardner
(2007) A Study of the Antecedents and Consequences of Psychological Ownership in
Organizational Settings, The Journal of Social Psychology, 147:5, 477-500, DOI: 10.3200/
SOCP.147.5.477-500

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.5.477-500

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1149

View related articles

Citing articles: 69 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20
 The Journal of Social Psychology, 2007, 147(5), 477–500
Copyright © 2007 Heldref Publications

A Study of the Antecedents and

Consequences of Psychological Ownership
in Organizational Settings
MELISSA G. MAYHEW
NEAL M. ASHKANASY
TOM BRAMBLE
JOHN GARDNER
The University of Queensland

ABSTRACT. Psychological ownership is a feeling of possession in the absence of any for-

mal or legal claims of ownership. In this study, the authors aimed to extend previous empiri-
cal testing of psychological ownership in work settings to encompass both job-based and
organization-based psychological ownership as well as related work attitudes and behavioral
outcomes. Questionnaire data from 68 employees and their managers revealed that job-based
psychological ownership and organization-based psychological ownership are distinct work
attitudes that are distinguishable from job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Psy-
chological ownership predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment and medi-
ated the relationship between autonomy and these work attitudes. There was no support for a
relationship between psychological ownership and behavioral outcomes. The authors discuss
the limitations of the study and the implications of psychological ownership.
Keywords: attitudes, psychological ownership, role behaviors

OWNERSHIP AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON has been the focus of

many recent studies (e.g., Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001, 2003; Pierce, O’Driscoll,
& Coghlan, 2004; Pierce & Rodgers, 2004; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). This inter-
est is warranted considering the effect of feelings of possession on an individual’s
self-concept, attitudes, values, and demonstrable behavior. In the present study, we
aimed to further apply and empirically extend the idea of psychological ownership
to organizational settings and draw inferences regarding its effects in this context.
Feelings of ownership can develop toward both material and immaterial
objects and can shape identity (Belk, 1988; Dittmar, 1992) and affect behavior
(Isaacs, 1933; O’Toole, 1979). Such feelings can exist in the absence of any for-

Address correspondence to Neal M. Ashkanasy, The University of Queensland Business School,

St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia; n.ashkanasy@bel.uq.edu.au (e-mail).

477
478 The Journal of Social Psychology

mal or legal claim of ownership. Instead, mere association is sufficient to produce

feelings of ownership (Beggan & Brown, 1994). These essential characteristics
of possession are encapsulated in the concept of psychological ownership, which
Pierce et al. (2001) defined as a “state in which individuals feel as though the
target of ownership (material or immaterial in nature) or a piece of it is ‘theirs’
(i.e., ‘It is MINE!’)” (p. 229).
Managerial practitioners (e.g., T. L. Brown, 1989; Peters, 1989; Stayer, 1990)
and scholars (e.g., Pierce et al., 2001) have postulated an organizational manifes-
tation of psychological ownership. Considering the ubiquitous nature of feelings
of possession and ownership, it can be expected that individuals may develop
feelings of psychological ownership toward any number of different organiza-
tional targets, such as organizations themselves, jobs, work tasks, work space,
work tools or equipment, ideas or suggestions, and team members (Rudmin &
Berry, 1987; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004).
In the present research, we focused on individuals’ feelings of ownership
toward their organizations and their jobs. Researchers have identified two distinct
types of psychological ownership. Organization-based psychological ownership
is concerned with individual members’ feelings of possession and psychological
connection to an organization as a whole. Several characteristics may influ-
ence this state, including organizational culture and climate, attitudes of senior
management, corporate goals and vision, reputation of the organization, and
corporate policies and procedures. Job-based psychological ownership is related
to individuals’ feelings of possession toward their particular jobs. Researchers
consider both types of psychological ownership as attitudinal rather than endur-
ing personality traits (e.g., Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Accordingly, psychologi-
cal ownership is context-specific and reflects the individual’s current position in
regard to both the present organization and the existing job.
We aimed to investigate three central questions related to these two types of
psychological ownership. First, is psychological ownership distinct from—yet
related to—the work attitudes of organizational commitment and job satisfaction?
Second, what is the impact of job autonomy as an antecedent to psychological
ownership? Third, what are the consequences of psychological ownership? More
specifically, is it associated with positive benefits for the organization, namely
incremental increases in performance and extra-role behaviors? We investigated
these questions by focusing on work attitudes (job satisfaction and commitment),
job factors (autonomy), and work behaviors (in-role and extra-role behaviors).

Work Attitudes

According to Heider (1958), an individual’s feelings of ownership of an

object induce liking of the object. Heider based this conclusion on Irwin and
Gebhard’s (1946) finding that children consistently preferred objects given to
them over objects given to others, to the extent that “ownership enhances the
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 479

value of an object to the owner” (p. 651). Numerous researchers (e.g., Beggan,
1992; Nesselroade, Beggan, & Allison, 1999) have demonstrated that people
evaluate a target more favorably when they own it—the mere ownership effect.
Similarly, possessions that are closely integrated with the self tend to be more
positively valenced (Schultz, Klein, & Kernan, 1989). Thus, one may expect that
employees will like or feel satisfaction with their jobs when they feel psychologi-
cal ownership over them.
Vandewalle, Van Dyne, and Kostova (1995) and Van Dyne and Pierce (2004)
found empirical support for a relationship between psychological ownership and
job satisfaction. Similarly, Long’s (1978) research indicates that job satisfaction
is associated with formal ownership plans, and Pierce and colleagues (Pierce &
Furo, 1990; Pierce, Rubenfeld, & Morgan, 1991) found that this relationship
is dependent on organizational members’ developing a sense of psychological
ownership. However, previous researchers have focused on the influence of
organization-based psychological ownership, rather than job-based psychological
ownership, on job satisfaction. Given the distinction between the two ownership
targets, we theorized that job satisfaction would be associated not with organiza-
tion-based psychological ownership but, rather, with job-based psychological
ownership. Specifically, if job satisfaction is considered the extent to which
people like their jobs (Spector, 1997), rather than their satisfaction with work life
or the organization in general, it follows that job-based psychological ownership,
rather than organization-based psychological ownership, would be an important
factor determining job satisfaction. Therefore, we proposed the following hypoth-
esis for the present study:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): A positive relationship exists between job-based psychological

ownership and job satisfaction.

Meyer and Allen (1991) described organizational commitment as the desire

to maintain an association with an organization. When possessions are viewed
as part of the extended self, it follows that the loss of possessions equates to a
“loss or lessening of the self” and is associated with detrimental consequences
(Belk, 1988, p. 142). Therefore, individuals who experience feelings of owner-
ship should want to maintain their association with the organization because of
unfavorable consequences if this connection is broken.
Both theoretical and empirical research findings have supported a relation-
ship between psychological ownership and organizational commitment. Lawler
(1992) suggested that employees must feel as though they own the organization to
develop the organizational commitment characteristic of high-involvement orga-
nizations. Florkowski (1987) and Pierce et al. (1991) proposed that psychological
ownership is an antecedent to organizational commitment. Empirical findings
have supported these propositions. For example, Van Dyne and Pierce (2004)
found that psychological ownership was a significant predictor of organizational
480 The Journal of Social Psychology

commitment in several samples. Vandewalle et al.’s (1995) research similarly

revealed a significant positive relationship between organization-based psycho-
logical ownership and organizational commitment. Druskat and Pescosolido
(2002) obtained indirect support for this relationship by showing that a reduction
in team psychological ownership was related to reduced levels of organizational
commitment. Furthermore, formal employee ownership plans have been asso-
ciated with the increased loyalty and commitment of organizational members
(Bakan, Suseno, Pinnington, & Money, 2004; Long, 1978; Rosen, 1990; Sands,
2002). Although many researchers (e.g., Pierce & Furo, 1990) have disputed this
effect, their ambiguous results can be explained by the presence of psychological
ownership. Specifically, positive outcomes of organizations’ formal ownership
systems depend on members’ developing a sense of psychological ownership
(Pierce et al., 1991; Pierce & Furo). Considering this previous research on the
relationship between organizational commitment and psychological ownership,
we hypothesized the following:

H2a: A positive relationship exists between organization-based psychological owner-

ship and organizational commitment.

It is necessary to specify further the type of commitment we expected to be

associated with psychological ownership. The prevailing conceptualization of
organizational commitment is that of Allen and Meyer (1990), in which commit-
ment includes affective, normative, and continuance components. Affective com-
mitment refers to the “employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with,
and involvement in, the organization” (Allen & Meyer, p. 1), and both Vandewalle
et al. (1995) and Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) concluded that affective commit-
ment is related to psychological ownership.
In contrast to affective commitment, continuance and normative components
of commitment have yet to be examined in relation to psychological ownership.
Normative commitment refers to an employee’s feelings of obligation to remain at
the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Wiener (1982) suggested that normative
commitment develops as a function of socialization experiences, such as societal
or familial experiences. Angle and Lawson (1993) argued that normative commit-
ment represents a personal value defining an individual’s propensity to commit
and therefore acts as an antecedent to commitment. Furthermore, results have
not empirically supported the distinction between normative and affective com-
ponents of commitment, and further research is necessary for construct clarity
(Bergman, 2006). Because psychological ownership is a function of contextual
factors rather than experience or dispositional factors and because there have been
recent criticisms made of the normative commitment construct, we did not focus
on normative commitment in the present study.
Unlike normative commitment, continuance commitment may be related to
psychological ownership. Continuance commitment refers to the extent to which an
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 481

individual wants to stay with an organization because of the costs associated with
leaving (Allen & Meyer, 1990), such as costs of the loss of job security or accrued
vacation leave (R. B. Brown, 1996). To investigate the possibility of a relationship
between continuance commitment and psychological ownership, we included
continuance commitment in our analyses. Because psychological ownership repre-
sents a feeling of possession, we expected that it would be more closely related to
affective commitment than to continuance commitment. Specifically, we theorized
that the costs associated with departure are more similar to emotional costs than
financial loss. Considering this, we hypothesized the following:

H2b: The relationship between organization-based psychological ownership and

affective commitment is stronger than the relationship between organization-based
psychological ownership and continuance commitment.

Although there is evidence of relationships between (a) psychological own-

ership and (b) job satisfaction and commitment, the appearance of such relation-
ships may be a result of conceptual overlap. Previous research has supported the
distinctiveness of the psychological ownership construct. For example, Van Dyne
and Pierce (2004) found that organization-based psychological ownership was
distinguishable from both affective commitment and job satisfaction. However,
further research is necessary to elucidate (a) the distinctiveness of job-based
psychological ownership and of organization-based psychological ownership
and (b) the distinction between psychological ownership on the one hand and
job satisfaction and commitment on the other hand. Therefore, in the present
research, we explored these issues with the aim of offering further validation of
the psychological ownership construct.

Job Factors

Pierce et al. (2001, 2003) offered three routes or mechanisms through which
psychological ownership emerges. First, control of an object may produce feel-
ings of ownership toward the object. Second, feelings of ownership may develop
with greater knowledge of and familiarity with an object. Third, individuals may
develop feelings of ownership for an object if they create it, especially if the
creation involves significant investment of the self.
In applying Pierce et al.’s (2001, 2003) theory to organizations, we con-
sidered the antecedents of knowledge and investment of the self to be largely
functions of occupation. For example, carpenters, engineers, or teachers usually
have greater opportunities to invest themselves in their work than do accountants
or receptionists because the nature of the former occupations allows for greater
individuality and creativity in the execution of job roles. Similarly, intimate
knowledge generally depends on job position; for example, senior managers have
greater access to organizational information than do employees in more junior
482 The Journal of Social Psychology

positions. Therefore, these antecedents may depend on job type and may produce
job-based psychological ownership to the exclusion of organization-based psy-
chological ownership. Because we were interested in looking at both job-based
and organization-based psychological ownership, we omitted these antecedents
from the present study.
In contrast to knowledge and self-investment, object control is considered a
viable antecedent to ownership that can be applied to organizations. Rudmin and
Berry (1987) concluded that an essential component of possession and ownership
is the ability to exercise influence and control. Congruent with the understanding
that possessions shape identity, McClelland (1951) asserted that when someone is
able to control external objects, they form part of the person’s extended self. Con-
versely, a lack of control is associated with the “not-self” (McClelland, p. 539).
Because possessions also form part of the extended self (Belk, 1988), control
likely determines the development of feelings of ownership, which allow objects
to be integrated with the self. Organizations provide members with opportunities
to control facets of their employment, most notably by allowing employees the
freedom and flexibility to plan and perform their workloads.
According to Pierce et al. (2001), highly autonomous jobs imply a greater
degree of control and thus should increase the experience of psychological
ownership. Pierce et al. (2004) investigated this claim and found a significant
relationship between psychological ownership on the one hand and control and
job-design autonomy on the other hand. On the basis of the theoretical proposi-
tion that a relationship exists between psychological ownership and control, we
hypothesized the following:

H3a: A positive relationship exists between (a) job-design autonomy and (b) job-based
and organization-based psychological ownership.

Research has long supported the relationship between job satisfaction and
job characteristics, including autonomy (e.g., Ambrose & Kulik, 1999; Carr,
Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon, 2003; Cohrs, Abele, & Dette, 2006; Lawler & Hall,
1970; Wall & Martin, 1987). Researchers have found a similar relationship
between autonomy and organizational commitment (e.g., Carr et al.; DeCotiis &
Summers, 1987; Steers, 1977). On the basis of these findings, we hypothesized
the following:

H3b: Organization-based psychological ownership mediates the relationship between

autonomy and organizational commitment.

H3c: Job-based psychological ownership mediates the relationship between autonomy

and job satisfaction.

Through the mechanism of control, employees not only experience organi-

zation-based psychological ownership but also become more committed to the
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 483

organization. In addition, greater autonomy provides employees with a sense that

their job is their own, thereby increasing their liking of and satisfaction with the
job. In this study, we were interested in assessing the direct and indirect effects of
autonomy and psychological ownership on commitment and job satisfaction.

Work Behaviors

When an object is owned, greater care, attention, and energy are bestowed
on it (Belk, 1988). Furthermore, some psychologists (e.g., O’Toole, 1979) con-
sider ownership a prime motivator of human behavior. Therefore, we propose
that psychological ownership may produce positive actions such as in-role and
extra-role behaviors. Previous research has indicated a clear delineation between
extra-role behavior and in-role behavior (e.g., Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean
Parks, 1995; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Extra-role behavior encompasses
discretionary behavior that is external to formal employment conditions and is
undertaken with the belief that such behavior will result in positive outcomes
for the organization (Van Dyne et al., 1995). In contrast, in-role behavior is that
which is necessary to gain organizational rewards and retain employment (Van
Dyne & LePine).
We expected that psychological ownership would encourage employees to
perform at high levels. Ownership instills a sense of pride in employees and acts
as a motivator of greater performance (Berstein, 1976). Numerous scholars have
advocated the organizational benefits of formal ownership plans to employee
performance and organizational profits (e.g., Sands, 2002). Considering that
such success depends on organizational members’ developing a sense of psycho-
logical ownership, one may anticipate a relationship between both job-based and
organization-based psychological ownership and in-role behavior. Psychological
ownership researchers have found support for such a relationship. For example,
Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) found a significant positive relationship between
psychological ownership and employee performance. However, when demo-
graphic differences were taken into account, this relationship was not significant.
Considering this, we predicted the following:

H4: A positive relationship exists between (a) organization-based and job-based psy-
chological ownership and (b) in-role behavior.

Van Dyne et al. (1995) used the term extra-role behavior to describe discre-
tionary behavior that is external to formal employment conditions and rewards.
Although some use of the terminology to describe such behaviors has been
inconsistent, organizational citizenship behavior (Bateman & Organ, 1983;
Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) and extra-role behavior are the most accepted
labels. LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) found that the varying use of termi-
nology to describe these discretionary behaviors does not produce differences
484 The Journal of Social Psychology

in predictive relationships. Therefore, in this study, we applied literature on

organizational citizenship behavior to develop support for our hypotheses con-
cerning extra-role behaviors.
Researchers have found evidence that psychological ownership produces
incremental increases in extra-role behaviors. Pierce et al. (1991) theorized that
psychological ownership is associated with extra-role behaviors. Vandewalle et
al. (1995) found a significant positive relationship between extra-role behaviors
and psychological ownership, and this relationship was stronger than the rela-
tionship between in-role behaviors and psychological ownership. Van Dyne and
Pierce (2004) found a positive relationship between psychological ownership and
organizational citizenship behavior. However, previous researchers have used
general measures of extra-role behavior and thus have been unable to ascertain
the relationship between distinct dimensions of discretionary behavior and psy-
chological ownership.
On the basis of Van Dyne et al.’s (1995) typology of extra-role behavior,
we examined two specific dimensions of extra-role behavior rather than a
single global measure. Because we were interested in the positive conse-
quences of psychological ownership, we chose to investigate the two types of
promotive behavior—helping and voice—rather than the prohibitive behav-
iors of stewardship and whistle-blowing. Helping extra-role behavior refers to
promotive behavior that is cooperative and facilitates working relationships,
whereas voice extra-role behavior includes constructive expression aimed at
continuous organizational improvement (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). One
may expect that when employees feel ownership of their organization and
job, they are motivated to maintain harmonious relationships and feel entitled
to offer suggestions for change to facilitate overall performance. Considering
this, we predicted the following:

H5: Organization-based and job-based psychological ownership is positively related

to helping and voice extra-role behaviors.

Method

Participants

We invited 18 supervisors and 84 employees from two branches of an

accounting firm to participate in this study. Overall, 15 supervisors and 70
employees returned usable responses. We obtained matching data from 67 man-
ager–employee dyads and included 3 employee-only responses in applicable
analyses, yielding a total response rate of 80%. The mean age of participants was
32 years (SD = 0.43 years, range = 18–57 years), and they had an average length
of service in the organization of 3.6 years (SD = 4.0 years, range = 1 month to 14
years, 8 months). The majority of participants (75.7%) were women.
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 485

Procedure

We used a cross-sectional survey research design, with managers and

employees completing complementary written questionnaires. Employees
reported on their organization- and job-based psychological ownership,
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, perceived autonomy, and orga-
nizational and job tenures. Managers or immediate supervisors completed
questionnaires assessing the in-role and extra-role behaviors of each of their
subordinates.
We coded questionnaires to ensure confidentiality and distributed them to
supervisors and employees in their work settings during normal working hours.
We informed supervisors and employees of the research via an e-mail that a senior
partner in each firm distributed prior to the data-collection day.
Respondents attended short meetings in their work groups on the day of
distribution. Each group was composed of 1–3 supervisors and 7 employees.
We informed all respondents of the purpose of the research and notified
them that their supervisors would report on their performance. We assured
participants of the confidentiality of completed questionnaires and informed
them that only a researcher would view their responses. In addition, we guar-
anteed participants access to research feedback, both individual and across
all respondents.

Measures

We measured psychological ownership using a 7-item inventory that Van

Dyne and Pierce (2004) developed. On that inventory, respondents rate the extent
to which they agree or disagree with a series of statements on a 7-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The measure
tests individual employees’ feelings of possession toward the organization (e.g.,
“This is MY organization”), but we reworded it to test participants’ feelings of
possession towards their jobs (e.g., “This is MY job”). The alpha coefficients for
the scales in this study were .95 for organization-based ownership and .84 for
job-based ownership.
We measured organizational commitment using Allen and Meyer’s
(1990) 8-item affective commitment scale and 8-item measure of continu-
ance commitment. Affective commitment refers to an individual’s emotional
attachment to the organization (e.g., “This organization has a great deal of
personal meaning for me”). In contrast, continuance commitment is concerned
with the costs of leaving the organization and the resulting desire to maintain
an association with the organization (e.g., “I feel that I have too few options
to consider leaving this organization”). Respondents indicate the extent to
which they agree or disagree with a series of statements on a 7-point Lik-
ert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
486 The Journal of Social Psychology

alpha coefficients were .81 for affective commitment and .84 for continuance
commitment in this study.
We measured job satisfaction with a single-item question that Andrews and
Withey (1976) developed. We asked participants to respond to the question, “How
do you feel about your job overall?” on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (terrible) to
7 (delighted). The use of single-item global ratings of job satisfaction (see Spec-
tor, 1986) is common in this line of research because researchers have found them
to be more accurate and valid than are summation scores of job facets (Scarpello
& Campbell, 1983).
We measured in-role behavior using the positively worded items from the
In-Role Behavior Scale that Williams and Anderson (1991) developed and Van
Dyne and LePine (1998) adapted. On that scale, respondents rate the extent to
which subordinates engage in behavior expected of them in their job positions
on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The alpha coefficient for that scale in this study was .92.
We measured extra-role behavior with Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) 7-
item inventory of helping behaviors and 6-item inventory of voice behaviors.
Van Dyne and LePine derived the helping behavior items from existing scales
developed by Organ and Konovsky (1989) and Smith et al. (1983), and we
reworded them to reflect supervisor assessment (e.g., “This particular sub-
ordinate helps others in this organization learn about the work”). We did the
same for the voice behavior items, which Van Dyne and LePine adapted from
Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) and Withey and Cooper (1989; e.g.,
“This particular subordinate keeps well informed about issues where his or
her opinion might be useful to this organization”). Supervisors rate the extent
to which each of their subordinates exhibit both helping and voice extra-role
behaviors on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficients were .94 for helping behavior and
.95 for voice behavior.
We measured autonomy using the five items relating to perceived autonomy
in Sims, Szilagyi, and Keller’s (1976) Job Characteristics Inventory. Respondents
indicate the degree to which a series of questions are indicative of their jobs on
a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much), which is
an extension of Sims et al.’s original 5-point Likert scale. The alpha coefficient
for the five items in this study was .90.
The employee questionnaires also included seven questions regarding
demographics. The first question asked respondents for their names so we could
match responses with supervisor reports of employee behavior. The second ques-
tion assessed employees’ age in years. In addition, respondents indicated their
nationality by choosing from the following list: (a) Australian, (b) British, (c)
American, (d) Pacific Islander, (e) European, (f) Chinese, (g) non-Chinese Asian,
and (g) other nationality. Last, respondents indicated their job title and their job
and organizational tenures.
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 487

Results

Factor Analysis

We conducted factor analyses via principal components analysis (PCA) on

the two measures of psychological ownership and the affective and continuance
commitment measures to ensure that latent constructs were distinct (N = 70).
Measures of sampling adequacy (MSAs) for individual variables were sufficient
(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSAs > .70) yet revealed that two continuance commit-
ment items were unacceptable, with values < .5 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998): “It wouldn’t be too costly for me to leave my organization now”
and “I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another
one lined up.” Low sampling adequacy indicated that these two items were not
sufficiently related to other items and thus were not suitable for factor analysis
(Hair et al.). Initial inspection of the scree plot indicated either a three- or four-
factor solution, so we examined both possibilities. We considered the three-factor
solution inappropriate because of the high degree of split loadings. Therefore, we
used PCA to extract a four-factor solution. We further excluded two job-based
psychological ownership measures because of low factor loadings: “I sense that
this job is OUR job” and “This is OUR job.” In addition, split loadings across
two or three factors warranted the exclusion of three affective commitment items:
(a) “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization,”
(b) “I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it,” and (c) “I really
feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.” In total, we removed seven
items from the final factors analysis. On the basis of simple structure and theoreti-
cal considerations, we selected the four-factor solution as the most appropriate.
The four factors accounted for 69.8% of the variance. We chose oblique rotation
because of a moderate correlation between the two psychological ownership
factors (r = .38) and between organization-based psychological ownership and
affective commitment (r = .28). Table 1 shows the items and factor loadings for
these four factors.
We conducted factor analyses via PCA to determine the number of underly-
ing constructs in in-role and extra-role behavior. MSAs were high (overall MSA =
.91) and all individual items were greater than .80, indicating the appropriateness
of factor analysis on the data (Hair et al., 1998). Scree plot inspection suggested
a two- or three-factor solution, and we examined both possibilities. The two-fac-
tor solution did not discriminate between the three constructs and instead loaded
on only one factor. Therefore, on the basis of simple structure, we selected the
three-factor solution as the most appropriate. Because of split loadings across all
three factors, we excluded one helping extra-role behavior item: “This particular
subordinate volunteers to do things for this organization.” The final three-factor
solution accounted for 83.9% of the variance. Table 2 shows items and factor
loadings. We selected oblique rotation because of a sizeable correlation between
488 The Journal of Social Psychology

TABLE 1. Factor Analysis of Psychological Ownership and Commitment Items

Factor
Item 1 2 3 4

This is MY organization. .93 .02 .04 –.11

I sense that this organization is OUR company. .88 .00 .15 –.07
I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this
organization. .89 .04 .17 –.16
I sense that this is MY company. .93 .10 –.05 –.02
This is OUR company. .86 .04 .10 .08
Most people that work for this organization feel as
though they own the company. .82 .07 –.32 .07
It is hard for me to think about this organization as MINE.a .56 –.06 .28 .22
This is MY job. .05 .89 .21 –.03
I feel a very high degree of personal ownership for this job. .06 .80 .23 –.04
I sense that this is MY job. .02 .90 .14 –.03
Most people that work for this organization feel as
though they own their job. .25 .55 .27 .15
It is hard for me to think about this job as MINE.a –.05 .69 –.10 .01
I think that I could easily become as attached to another
organization as I am to this one.a .23 –.16 .60 .03
I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.a –.06 .18 .79 –.13
I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this
organization.a .09 .16 .79 .02
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning
for me. .27 .17 .56 .07
I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my
organization.a –.09 –.03 .89 .03
It would be very hard for me to leave my organization
right now, even if I wanted to. .11 –.04 .14 .79
Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I
wanted to leave my organization now. –.07 .20 .09 .79
Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of
necessity as much as desire. –.16 –.22 .09 .71
I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this
organization. –.11 .11 –.17 .80
One of the few serious consequences of leaving this
organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. –.01 –.07 –.17 .74
One of the major reasons I continue to work for this
organization is that my leaving would require
considerable personal sacrifice—another organization
may not match the overall benefits I have here. .19 .02 .01 .67

Note. Factor 1 = Organization-Based Psychological Ownership; Factor 2 = Job-Based Psy-

chological Ownership; Factor 3 = Affective Commitment; Factor 4 = Continuance Commit-
ment. Primary factor loadings are shown in bold type.
a
Reverse scored.
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 489

both types of extra-role behavior (r = .71). In-role behavior was highly correlated
with helping extra-role behavior (r = .61) and moderately correlated with voice
extra-role behavior (r = .49).
We conducted factor analysis via PCA to determine if all autonomy items
loaded on a single factor (N = 70). All MSAs were high (> .7) with the exception
of one item: “To what extent do you receive information from your superior on
your job performance?” A two-factor solution produced items that loaded on a
single factor. We subsequently excluded the aforementioned item because of an
absence of loading on any factor. The one-factor solution accounted for 61.8%
of the variance.

TABLE 2. Factor Analysis of In-Role and Extra-Role Behavior Items

Factor
Item 1 2 3

Fulfills the responsibilities specified in his or her job

description .96 –.06 –.05
Performs the tasks that are expected as part of the job .94 –.01 .00
Meets performance expectation .94 .03 .09
Adequately completes responsibilities .91 –.06 .04
Helps orient new employees in this organization .16 .65 .13
Attends functions that help the organization –.06 .69 .16
Assists others in this organization with their work for the
benefit of the organization .08 .96 –.09
Gets involved to benefit this organization .01 .68 .26
Helps others in this organization learn about the work –.00 .82 .13
Helps others in this organization with their work
responsibilities .06 .98 –.14
Develops and makes recommendations concerning issues
that affect this organization –.12 –.36 .70
Speaks up and encourages others in this organization to get
involved in issues that affect the organization –.04 .04 .97
Communicates his or her opinions about work issues to
others in this group even if his or her opinion is different
and others in the organization disagree with him or her .00 .01 .93
Keeps well informed about issues where his or her opinion
might be useful to this organization .22 –.04 .74
Gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work life
here in this organization .19 –.00 .74
Speaks up in this organization with ideas for new projects or
changes in procedures .03 –.11 .84

Note. Items begin with the stem, “This particular subordinate . . .” Factor 1 = In-Role Behavior;
Factor 2 = Helping Extra-Role Behavior; Factor 3 = Voice Extra-Role Behavior. Primary factor
loadings are shown in bold type.
490 The Journal of Social Psychology

On the basis of the factor analysis results, we produced summated scores

for each of the factors by averaging the included items. The total sample size
was 67 participants, with a pairwise approach adopted for missing data. Table
3 shows scale reliabilities, descriptive statistics, and correlations. These factor
analysis and correlation results provide support for the conceptual distinctiveness
of psychological ownership. PCAs yielded a four-factor solution and highlighted
the distinctions among both types of psychological ownership and both types
of commitment. The bivariate correlations indicated that both job-based and
organization-based psychological ownerships were distinct from job satisfac-
tion. The evidence for discriminant validity highlights the distinction between
job satisfaction and psychological ownership. For example, unlike either job- or
organization-based psychological ownership, job satisfaction displayed a signifi-
cant relationship with helping extra-role behavior (r = .29, p < .05).

Hypothesis Testing

We tested our hypotheses using hierarchical multiple regression analyses.

Table 4 displays the results. Job-based psychological ownership was significantly
related to job satisfaction, supporting H1. We predicted (H2b) that the relationship
between organization-based psychological ownership and affective commitment
would be stronger than the relationship between organization-based psychologi-
cal ownership and continuance commitment. Tests of the difference between two
independent correlation coefficients (Howell, 1997) revealed that this difference
was significant (z = 1.74, p < .05), fully supporting H2b. Given these results, we
omitted continuance commitment from regression estimates. Results revealed
that organization-based psychological ownership was significantly related to
affective organizational commitment, supporting H2a. Contrary to our predic-
tions, however, organization-based psychological ownership was also related to
job satisfaction.
To test the hypothesized mediation effects of psychological ownership, we
examined the combined findings of relevant regression results from path analysis
(see Table 5), as Baron and Kenny (1986) suggested. According to Baron and
Kenny, results support mediation when (a) the independent variable significantly
predicts the mediating variable, (b) the independent variable is significantly relat-
ed to the dependent variable, and (c) in the presence of the mediating variable, the
ability of the independent variable to predict the dependent variable is reduced
(partial mediation) or removed completely (full mediation). We also tested the
statistical significance of the mediation effects using Sobel tests (Preacher &
Leonardelli, 2001).
As we predicted in H3a, autonomy was significantly related to both organiza-
tion-based and job-based psychological ownership, thereby satisfying the first
condition of mediation. Both autonomy and job-based psychological ownership
were significantly related to job satisfaction, suggesting partial mediation (H3b).
TABLE 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Variables for Measures of Psychological Ownership, Organizational
Commitment, In-Role and Extra-Role Behaviors, and Autonomy

Variable n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Organization-based psychological ownership 68 3.62 1.48 (.95)

2. Job-based psychological ownership 68 5.22 0.89 .43** (.84)
3. Job satisfaction 67 4.82 1.10 .51** .52**
4. Affective commitment 68 4.19 0.95 .43** .27* .59** (.81)
5. Continuance commitment 68 3.51 1.13 .13 .05 .16 –.06 (.84)
6. In-role behavior 65 4.98 0.96 .07 –.01 .04 –.01 .11 (.92)
7. Helping extra-role behavior 65 4.58 1.01 .12 .06 .29* .38* –.12 .65** (.94)
8. Voice extra-role behavior 65 4.24 1.08 .11 –.04 .21 .21 –.16 .56** .79** (.95)
9. Autonomy 68 4.96 1.26 .31* .37** .65** .40** –.08 .27* .49** .37** (.90)

Note. Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s αs) are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.
*
p < .05. **p < .01.
Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner
491
492 The Journal of Social Psychology

TABLE 4. Regression Analysis of Job-Based and Organization-Based Psychological

Ownership as Predictors of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and
In-Role and Extra-Role Behaviors

Dependent variable
Job satisfaction Organizational commitment
Adj. Adj.
Predictor variable B SE B β R2 R2 B SE B β R2 R2

Psychological ownership .37 .35** .19 .17**

Job-based 0.45 0.14 .37** 0.11 0.13 .10
Organization-based 0.26 0.08 .35** 0.25 0.08 .39**

*
p < .05. **p < .01.

The addition of job-based psychological ownership increased the explained

variance in job satisfaction by 4% above the effects of autonomy. Using Sobel’s
test, we found that this mediation effect was significant, z = 2.32, p < .05. The
results also supported H3c: Both autonomy and organization-based psychological
ownership were significantly related to organizational commitment. The addition
of organization-based psychological ownership increased the explained variance
in organizational commitment by 9% above the effects of autonomy. Results
from the Sobel test indicated that this indirect effect was significant, z = 1.97, p
< .05. Contrary to our predictions, organization-based psychological ownership
also partially mediated the relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction,
increasing the explained variance by 5% above the effects of autonomy. This
mediation was significant, z = 2.13, p < .05.
Our results did not support H4 or H5. There was no significant relationship
between organization-based psychological ownership and in-role behavior,
helping extra-role behavior, or voice extra-role behavior. We also did not find a
significant relationship between job-based psychological ownership and in-role
behavior, helping extra-role behavior, or voice extra-role behavior.

Discussion

In this research, we aimed to extend and offer further support to existing

empirical research on psychological ownership in organizations (Pierce et al.,
2004; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004; Vanderwalle et al., 1995) by answering three
questions. The first research question concerned the distinctiveness of psycho-
logical ownership and the extent to which ownership in organizations is dissimilar
from related work attitudes, namely job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment. Our results suggest that organization-based and job-based psychological
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 493

In-role behavior Helping extra-role behavior Voice extra-role behavior

Adj. Adj. Adj.
B SE B β R2 R2 B SE B β R2 R2 B SE B β R2 R2

.01 .02 .01 .02 .02 .01

–0.06 0.15 –.06 0.01 0.16 .01 –0.13 0.17 –.11
0.06 0.09 .10 0.08 0.10 .11 0.12 0.10 .16

ownerships are distinct work attitudes. These two ownership types are differen-
tiable from each other and are dissimilar from the related work attitudes of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, job-based psychological
ownership is related to job satisfaction, whereas organization-based psychological
ownership is related to affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
These results offer a resolution to the first research question and provide further
support for psychological ownership as a distinct construct that has relationships
with the work attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Through our second research question, we aimed to investigate the con-
sequences of psychological ownership on positive organizational outcomes,
namely in-role and extra-role behaviors. Our results did not support a relation-
ship between in-role behavior and job-based or organization-based psychological
ownership. Researchers have not previously empirically examined the relation-
ship between job-based psychological ownership and in-role behavior. Van Dyne
and Pierce (2004) found a significant correlation between employee performance
and organization-based psychological ownership, but the correlation was not sig-
nificant when demographics were taken into account. The results of our research
suggest that psychological ownership is not associated with manager ratings of
in-role behavior in this sample.
We similarly found no support for a relationship between (a) job-based or
organization-based psychological ownership and (b) helping or voice extra-role
behavior. Although previous research has supported the relationship between
organization-based psychological ownership and both general extra-role behavior
(Vandewalle et al., 1995) and organizational citizenship behavior (Van Dyne &
Pierce, 2004), we found that these effects were not consistent when we exam-
ined the specific types of promotive discretionary behavior of helping and voice
extra-role behavior. Future researchers may achieve a more applicable analysis
 494
TABLE 5. Results of the Application of R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny’s (1986) Three-Part Mediation Test to
Psychological Ownership as a Potential Mediator Between Autonomy and Dependent Variables (Job Satisfaction
and Organizational Commitment)

Psychological ownership Dependent variable

Job-based Organization-based Job satisfaction Organizational commitment
Adj. Adj. Adj. Adj.
Regression variable B SE B β R2 R2 B SE B β R2 R2 B SE B β R2 R2 B SE B β R2 R2

Model 1 .14 .13** .09 .08*

The Journal of Social Psychology

Autonomy 0.26 0.08 .37** 0.36 0.14 .31*

Model 2 .43 .42** .16 .15**
Autonomy 0.58 0.08 .65** 0.30 0.09 .40**
Model 3A .51 .50** .18 .15**
Autonomy 0.47 0.08 .53** 0.26 0.09 .35**
Job-based
psychological
ownership 0.39 0.12 .31** 0.15 0.13 .14
Model 3B .53 .51** .26 .24**
** *
Autonomy 0.48 0.08 .55 0.22 0.09 .30
Organization-based
psychological
ownership 0.25 0.07 .37** 0.22 0.07 .34**

Note. The three regression models correspond to Baron and Kenny’s three steps for determining mediation. Job-based and organizational-based psy-
chological ownership were entered separately as potential mediating variables into the third regression model (results corresponding to Model 3A
and Model 3B, respectively).
*
p < .05. **p < .01.
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 495

of the relationship between psychological ownership and extra-role behaviors

by using peer ratings of these behaviors rather than manager ratings. Van Dyne
and LePine (1998) noted that peers tend to interact with each other more than
do employees and supervisors, and, as a result, peers may be more aware of
discretionary behavior.
The third research question concerned our testing of an antecedent of psycho-
logical ownership. Our results are consistent with the prediction that autonomy
would be related to both job-based and organization-based psychological owner-
ship. Autonomy had both direct and indirect effects on psychological ownership
and work attitudes. Job-based psychological ownership partially mediated the
relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction, whereas organization-based
psychological ownership partially mediated the relationship between autonomy
and organizational commitment. In addition, organization-based psychological
ownership unexpectedly partially mediated the relationship between autonomy
and job satisfaction. Consistent with Pierce et al.’s (2004) findings, our results
indicate that autonomy is a significant factor in job-related psychological owner-
ship, influencing all work behaviors and attitudes. The unique ability of autonomy
to predict job satisfaction, organizational commitment, in-role behavior, and
extra-role behavior above any mediation effects emphasizes the importance of
considering autonomy when investigating employees in organizations.
Whereas consultants have espoused the value of psychological ownership
for many years (e.g., T. L. Brown, 1989; Peters, 1989; Stayer, 1990), academic
researchers have only recently begun to pay attention to it. The present research
contributes to the construct validation of psychological ownership by supporting
concept distinctness. Like Van Dyne and Pierce’s (2004) results, which support
the differentiation of organization-based psychological ownership from related
work attitudes, our research supports the distinct conceptualizations of job-based
and organization-based psychological ownership. Our results also replicate previ-
ous research findings in the area and offer unique insights into the relationships
among psychological ownership, work attitudes, work behaviors, and job-related
factors. Together, these insights add to the understanding of psychological owner-
ship and employee attitudes and behaviors in organizations.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is the small sample size. Whereas the present
sample size of 67 satisfies less stringent size guidelines, the overall effect of this
small sample size is a reduced power of statistical analyses and limited general-
izability. Other researchers studying psychological ownership have used larger
sample sizes ranging from 186 (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) to 797 (Vandewalle et
al., 1995) participants. Nonetheless, despite the sample-size restrictions, the qual-
ity of the data, which is based on both self- and manager-reports, is notable, and
we obtained clear and significant results in respect to many of our predictions.
496 The Journal of Social Psychology

A second limitation of the present research relates to our use of a single-item

measure of job satisfaction. Scarpello and Campbell (1983) advocated the use of
a single global rating of job satisfaction rather than multi-item measures because
the concept of job satisfaction is more complex than that represented in summa-
tion scores of job facets. In addition, Spector’s (1986) review of job-satisfaction
research revealed that empirical investigations of the job-satisfaction construct
commonly use single-item measures. However, the use of a single global rating
of job satisfaction precluded factor analyses—which may have provided further
evidence for the distinction between psychological ownership and job satisfac-
tion—and limited our results to providing support for discriminant validity. A
multiple-item scale to assess job satisfaction may have provided greater construct
validity of psychological ownership.
Last, our use of a single questionnaire to collect data from both sets of
participants introduced the possibility of common method variance (Williams
& Brown, 1994). We partially overcame this problem by using the measures of
performance, which managers or supervisors assessed. However, Doty and Glick
(1998) argued that common method variance may not be as serious of a problem
as originally proposed, especially when researchers are investigating complex
relationships. In the present research, the lack of a relationship between psycho-
logical ownership and continuance commitment suggests that common method
variance was not an issue.

Directions for Future Research

Our results provide a number of directions for future researchers investigat-

ing psychological ownership in organizations. To develop an integrative theory
of psychological ownership, future researchers should address individual fac-
tors that may influence the development of psychological ownership. Although
psychological ownership is context specific and not considered an enduring trait
of personality (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004), individual factors may influence the
prediction of psychological ownership. For example, researchers studying the
psychology of possession have concentrated on individuals in Western cultures
(Dittmar, 1992), presumably because the collectivism inherent in Eastern cultures
precludes the development of individual feelings of ownership. Therefore, the
individualism–collectivism construct may be an individual difference predictor of
psychological ownership. Moorman and Blakely (1995) found that individualism
and collectivism produced individual differences in organizational citizenship
behavior. Therefore, future researchers may want to investigate the contribution
of individual differences to the prediction of psychological ownership.
Researchers should continue to gather evidence that validates the construct of
psychological ownership. Our findings contribute to this validation by supporting
the distinctiveness of psychological ownership from related work attitudes, but
further research is necessary to distinguish psychological ownership from other
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 497

constructs, particularly identification. Rousseau (1998) defined identification as

the perception and categorization of individuals into the larger organization, and
Pierce et al. (2001, p. 305) claimed that organizational identification answers the
question, “Who am I?” Considering the role of possessions in shaping identity,
one may conclude that the constructs of psychological ownership and identifica-
tion may overlap. This is especially the case because, according to Ashforth and
Mael (1989), one of the most significant consequences of identification is the
development of feelings of loyalty and commitment to the organization, which is
akin to organization-based psychological ownership. Considering this similarity,
it is important for future researchers to continue their efforts at construct valida-
tion by ensuring that psychological ownership is distinct from identification and
to investigate the way the two concepts interact to produce work attitudes.
An emerging area of application for psychological ownership in organiza-
tions is territoriality. According to G. Brown, Lawrence, and Robinson (2005),
psychological ownership leads to a number of territorial behaviors, including
control-oriented and identity-marking anticipatory and reactionary defending.
G. Brown et al. proposed that territoriality may lead to positive organizational
outcomes, such as commitment and a reduction of process conflict, and to nega-
tive outcomes, such as a reduction of in-role behaviors and performance. Future
research into the effect of psychological ownership on territorial behaviors and
their outcomes would provide greater understanding of the relationship between
individuals and ownership targets in organizational contexts.

AUTHOR NOTES
Melissa G. Mayhew recently received her PhD in organizational behavior from The
University of Queensland, Australia. Her research interests include psychological own-
ership and social identity in organizations. Neal M. Ashkanasy is the faculty research
director and a professor of management at The University of Queensland. His research
interests include organizational and ethical behavior, leadership, and emotions. Tom
Bramble teaches industrial relations and human resources management at The University
of Queensland Business School. His research interests are trade unionism, collective
bargaining, and organizational change. John Gardner is a lecturer at The University of
Queensland Business School. His research interests are organizational behavior, research
methodology, and data analysis.

REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, con-
tinuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the
1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 231–292.
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’
perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Angle, H. L., & Lawson, M. B. (1993). Changes in affective and continuance commitment
in times of relocation. Journal of Business Research, 26, 3–16.
498 The Journal of Social Psychology

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy
of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Bakan, I., Suseno, Y., Pinnington, A., & Money, A. (2004). The influence of financial par-
ticipation and participation in decision-making on employee job attitudes. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 587–616.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The rela-
tionship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal,
26, 587–595.
Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership
effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229–237.
Beggan, J. K., & Brown, E. M. (1994). Association as a psychological justification for
ownership. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 365–379.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possession and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
139–168.
Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative com-
mitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
645–663.
Bernstein, P. (1976). Workplace democratization: Its internal dynamics. Kent, OH: Kent
State University Press.
Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2005). Territoriality in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 577–594.
Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying
the existing construct typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230–251.
Brown, T. L. (1989, June 19). What will it take to win? Industry Week, 15.
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions mat-
ter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states,
and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605–619.
Cohrs, J. C., Abele, A. E., & Dette, D. E. (2006). Integrating situational and dispositional
determinants of job satisfaction: Findings from three samples of professionals. The
Journal of Psychology, 140, 363–395.
DeCotiis, T. A., & Summers, T. P. (1987). A path analysis of a model of the antecedents
and consequences of organizational commitment. Human Relations, 40, 445–470.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods vari-
ance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374–406.
Druskat, V. U., & Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). The content of effective teamwork mental
models in self-managing teams: Ownership, learning and heedful interrelating. Human
Relations, 55, 283–314.
Florkowski, G. W. (1987). The organizational impact of profit sharing. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 12, 622–636.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Howell, D. C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury
Press.
Irwin, F. W., & Gebhard, M. E. (1946). Studies in object-preferences: The effect of owner-
ship and other social influences. American Journal of Psychology, 59, 633–651.
 Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gardner 499

Isaacs, S. S. (1933). Social development in young children: A study of beginnings. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement organi-
zation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E., III., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job
involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54,
305–312.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of orga-
nizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 52–65.
Long, R. J. (1978). The effects of employee ownership on organizational identification,
employee job attitudes, and organizational performance: A tentative framework and
empirical findings. Human Relations, 31, 29–48.
McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Dryden Press.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism–collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16, 127–142.
Nesselroade, K. P., Jr., Beggan, J. K., & Allison, S. T. (1999). Possession enhancement
in an interpersonal context: An extension of the mere ownership effect. Psychology &
Marketing, 16, 21–34.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organi-
zational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.
O’Toole, J. (1979). The uneven record of employee ownership. Harvard Business Review,
57, 185–197.
Peters, T. (1989). The leadership alliance. Des Plaines, IL: Video Publishing.
Pierce, J. L., & Furo, C. A. (1990). Employee ownership: Implications for management.
Organizational Dynamics, 18, 32–45.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological owner-
ship in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298–310.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Inte-
grating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, 84–107.
Pierce, J. L., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Coghlan, A. (2004). Work environment structure and
psychological ownership: The mediating effects of control. The Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 144, 507–534.
Pierce, J. L., & Rodgers, L. (2004). The psychology of ownership and worker–owner
productivity. Group & Organization Management, 29, 588–613.
Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual
model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review, 16, 121–144.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive
calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.psych.
ku.edu/preacher/sobel/sobel.htm
Rosen, C. (1990). The record of employee ownership. Financial Management, 19,
39–47.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 19, 217–233.
Rudmin, F. W., & Berry, J. W. (1987). Semantics of ownership: A free-recall study of
property. Psychological Record, 37, 257–268.
Sands, J. (2002, May 30). Is employee ownership key to future success? Design Week,
17, p. 12.
500 The Journal of Social Psychology

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel
Psychology, 36, 577–600.
Schultz, S. E., Klein, R. E., III, & Kernan, J. B. (1989). “These are a few of my favor-
ite things”: Toward an explication of attachment as a consumer behavior construct.
Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 359–367.
Sims, H. P., Jr., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job charac-
teristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195–212.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concern-
ing autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stayer, R. (1990). How I learned to let my workers lead. Harvard Business Review, 68,
66–82.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 22, 46–56.
Vandewalle, D., Van Dyne, L., & Kostova, T. (1995). Psychological ownership: An
empirical examination of its consequences. Group & Organization Management, 20,
210–226.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In
pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research
in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 37, 765–803.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of posses-
sion: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–459.
Wall, T. D., & Martin, R. (1987). Jobs and work design. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson
(Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
61–92). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 7, 418–428.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment
as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Manage-
ment, 17, 601–617.
Williams, L. J., & Brown, B. K. (1994). Method variance in organizational behavior and
human resources research: Effects on correlations, path coefficients, and hypothesis
testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 185–209.
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521–539.

Received May 23, 2006

Accepted September 21, 2006